Tuesday, June 19, 2007


ARE THE SHRINKS RULING CLASS' TORTURERS AND EXECUTIONERS,OR ARE THEY INSANE ("MENTALLY ILL") ? by Justice Lover

Theoretically, there is a third alternative answer, namely, that the shrinks are ignorants who do not know what they doing. Although some people adopt such an answer to explain the crimes of psychiatry and its practitioners, it does not seem to be a realistic nor plausible answer, simply because all shrinks must get their academic MD title before they can practice as qualified psychiatrists. Any medical doctor would have sufficient knowledge of pharmacology, human anatomy, and general science to understand the harmful effects of the psychiatric drugs, of the electric shocks (ECT),and of psychosurgery "treatments" - not to mention the daily suffering imposed on the patient - with no benefit for the patient. If any layperson can understand the horrors of psychiatric "treatments", surely the shrinks should be able to understand too!

Therefore, what we are left with are the two possible explanations, namely, that the shrinks understand what they are doing but have certain delusions which lead them to perpetrate crimes, or that they are the willing torturers/executioners for the ruling class in return for the bribes they get from Big Pharma, as well as legal power and full protection from the state. Let us first check the delusion/insanity argument.

Dr. David Kaiser, a practicing USA psychiatrist, wrote an article, more than 10 years ago, in which he stated that psychiatry has gone insane. Here is the relevant part :
http://www.psy-relitherapy.com/html/biologic.htm

Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry
by David Kaiser, M.D.

"...It has occurred to me with forcible irony that psychiatry has quite literally lost its mind, and along with it the minds of the patients they are presumably supposed to care for. Even a cursory glance at any major psychiatric journal is enough to convince me that the field has gone far down the road into a kind of delusion, whose main tenets consist of a particularly pernicious biologic determinism and a pseudo-scientific understanding of human nature and mental illness".

However, psychiatry is not a person, has no mind of its own, therefore cannot go insane. He must have used this as euphemism so as not to offend his shrink colleagues who have "certain dellusions", which means by psychiatric definition that they are mentally ill !
While it is true that neither the psychiatric dogma nor the shrinks' practices make sense, and can be described as delusions oriented and delusions based theory and practice, very few people would consider compulsory psychiatric orders against the sick shrinks , much less compulsory electric shocks (ECT) against them. This is so despite the fact that the shrinks are dangerous to the public !

Accordingly, the shrinks are madmen who have got full immunity by law, as well as the legal power to declare others "mentally ill" and force on them psychiatric "treatment" !
We are left , then, with the only realistic explanation to which most critics of psychiatry
adhere, namely, that the shrinks are the ruling class' executioners and torturers in return for the bribes they get from Big Pharma, and for the power and protection they get from the state.


It follows also that their role is neither medical nor therapeutic, the purported roles which are used by the shrinks as a cover-up and as deceptive devices to lull the public into complacency, and the patients into obedience. The role of the shrinks is socio-political ! Which explains too their cynicism and contempt for their victim-patients ! The true status of the victim-patients is that of political prisoners who are being totured, their health and well being ruined, and their very existence is under constant threat by the shrinks' "treatments".

Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), the British novelist and essayist, was referring to "psycho eugenics" in his 1946 forward to his 1931 book "Brave New World". Eugenics is the racist theory of human "selection to improve the human race". Hitler's psychiatrists used this theory to jusitify the murder of hundreds of thousands of mental patients in Germany, as well as millions of Gypsies, Jews, Slavs and others who were considered "inferior" by the Nazis during Europe's occupation by fascist Germany in WW2. Here is what Huxley says about "psycho eugenics":

http://home.tiscali.de/alex.sk/A_Huxley.html

"...I think that's exactly what it's about and especially when thinking about who is nowadays "dictating" the rules to "our" legislative. I mean why are we forced into observance of rules that we have never agreed upon and we were not even ever asked whether we agree upon? So the problem of "democracy" is, that it is obviously comprised of immature people and there is no effort to "enlighten" people and make them more mature, but on the contrary the effort is to "obscure" and keep them in immaturity, because then they are easier to "handle". So anyone who feels unhappy and distrusts this system is regarded as suffering from a disease..."

As mentioned above, the main incentive for the shrinks are the generous bribes provided by Big Pharma. The bribes are given to the psychiatric profession by financing its international conferences (including free travel and accomodation for the participants), financing its "research", and by all kinds of grants and gifts to individual shrinks. So much so, that one conscientious shrink decided to resign in protest from the shrinks' organisation in the USA. He sent his letter of resignation to the head of the organisation, then publicised the letter as follows :
http://www.stopshrinks.org/reading_room/letters/resign_apa.html

"Letter of Resignation from the American Psychiatric Association
4 December 1998
Loren R. Mosher, M.D. to Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
Dear Rod,

After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association.

The major reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.Unfortunately, APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent society. Yet it helps wage war on "drugs".

"Dual diagnosis" clients are a major problem for the field but not because of the "good" drugs we prescribe. "Bad" ones are those that are obtained mostly without a prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist organization, APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a profit -- directly or indirectly. This is not a group for me.

At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company promotions.

APA, of course, maintains that its independence and autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation. Anyone with the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would observe how the drug company exhibits and "industry sponsored symposia" draw crowds with their various enticements, while the serious scientific sessions are barely attended.

Psychiatric training reflects their influence as well: the most important part of a resident's curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e., prescription writing.
These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer do we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts -- rather we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The problem is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a neurotransmitter -- whatever its configuration. So, our guild organization provides a rationale, by its neurobiological tunnel vision, for keeping our distance from the molecule conglomerates we have come to define as patients.

We condone and promote the widespread use and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long term effects -- tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and serious withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who treats with their fory? No, thank you very much.

It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. This is a matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical house connection, money.

In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an association) such that the two organizations have adopted similar public belief systems about the nature of madness. While professing itself the "champion of their clients" the APA is supporting non-clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring: NAMI with tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their offspring.

The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience between APA, NAMI, and the drug companies (who gleefully support both groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I want no part in a psychiatry of oppression and social control.

"Biologically based brain diseases" are certainly convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. We are all just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent example).

So, to be consistent with this "brain disease" view, all the major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them I believe they would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals. However, consistency would demand our giving over "biologic brain diseases" to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money.

This level of intellectual /scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership.I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being systematically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It must mean -- at least in part that they view psychiatry as being very limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are headed toward a situation in which, except for academics, most psychiatric practitioners will have no real, relationships -- so vital to the healing process -- with the disturbed and disturbing persons they treat. Their sole role will be that of prescription writers -- ciphers in the guise of being "helpers".

Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so -- although its brief apologia is rarely noted. DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best seller -- its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research projects.

The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax -- as practiced today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes.

What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after experiencing three decades of its history?
1. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy alliances without the members' permission.
2. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what it is -- that is, be honest.
3.Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups, i.e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.
4.Talk to the membership -- I can't be alone in my views.We seem to have forgotten a basic principle -- the need to be patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are your patient's employee."
In the end they will determine whether or not psychiatry survives in the service
marketplace."
(Emphasis by Justice Lover).

Sunday, June 17, 2007

THE MENTAL DEATH SYSTEM RUN BY SHRINKS, AND THE DEADLY POISONS THEY FORCE PEOPLE TO TAKE AS "MEDICATIONS"by Justice Lover

Let us solve a semantic problem first. It is the wrong use of the term "Mental Health System", because it is not ! So let us quote the correct term instead :
http://www.harborside.com/~equinox/glossary.htm

"MENTAL DEATH SYSTEM
A long-overdue correction of the misnomer "Mental Health System."

Psychiatric drugs - neuroleptics in particular!- are dangerous poisons,certainly not medications !
Here is what one honest psychiatrist says about them :

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/drsmith1.htm

"Why Psychiatric Drugs Are Always Bad
by Douglas C. Smith, M.D.

I no longer recommend psychiatric medications to anyone.

This seems radical in this country because we are in the midst of the "biological revolution." Everyone seems to assume medications are are specifically effective for various mental illnesses which are at least in part chemical or genetic in origin. I believe the science behind this is seriously flawed. It is based on false assumptions that lead to self-perpetuating mythology (and huge profits for drug companies).

I first gave up on tranquilizers, then antidepressants, then all psychiatric drugs. I learned that there are certain general principles that govern all psychoactive substances and biologic treatments.
General Principles:

(1) "Mental illnesses," even severe ones, are relational (I'd say spiritual as well). Psychiatry, by focusing almost exclusively on biology, is making itself increasingly irrelevant.
(2) Psychoactive substances provide at best, temporary relief, but always make things worse in the long run. They make things worse directly (chemically) and indirectly by distracting from the real issues.
(3) All psychoactive substances have rebound and withdrawal-related problems. "Relapse" rates, in general, during withdrawal from psychiatric drugs, are about 10 times higher than would be expected if the drug had never been taken.
(4) "All biopsychiatric treatments share a common mode of action -- the disruption of normal brain function" (Peter Breggin, M.D., Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Springer Pub. Co., 1997, p. 3). Drugs never correct imbalances. They never improve the brain. They "work" by impairing the brain and dampening feelings in various ways.
-----------------------
THE AUTHOR, Douglas C. Smith, M.D., graduated from Indiana University (1982 - Phi Beta Kappa) and Indiana University School of Medicine (1986) and completed his psychiatry training in 1990 and is board certified in psychiatry. He also has had additional training in psychoanalysis. He currently lives and practices in Juneau, Alaska."

There is even statistical proof that psychiatric drugs hinder recovery. Here it is :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/03/04/ncguest2.htm

"Mind drugs may hinder recovery
By Robert Whitaker

The movie A Beautiful Mind, nominated for eight Academy Awards, has brought welcome attention to the fact that people can and do recover from schizophrenia, a severely disabling disorder that affects about one in 100 Americans. Unfortunately, the film fabricates a critical detail of John Nash's recovery and in so doing, obscures a question that should concern us all:

Do the medications we use to treat schizophrenia promote long-term recovery or hinder it?

In the movie, Nash just before he receives a Nobel Prize speaks of taking "newer medications." The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has praised the film's director, Ron Howard, for showing the "vital role of medication" in Nash's recovery. But as Sylvia Nasar notes in her biography of Nash, on which the movie is loosely based, this brilliant mathematician stopped taking anti-psychotic drugs in 1970 and slowly recovered over two decades. Nasar concluded that Nash's refusal to take drugs "may have been fortunate" because their deleterious effects "would have made his gentle re-entry into the world of mathematics a near impossibility."

His is just one of many such cases. Most Americans are unaware that the World Health Organization (WHO) has repeatedly found that long-term schizophrenia outcomes are much worse in the USA and other "developed" countries than in poor ones such as India and Nigeria, where relatively few patients are on anti-psychotic medications. In "undeveloped" countries, nearly two-thirds of schizophrenia patients are doing fairly well five years after initial diagnosis; about 40% have basically recovered. But in the USA and other developed countries, most patients become chronically ill. The outcome differences are so marked that WHO concluded that living in a developed country is a "strong predictor" that a patient never will fully recover.

Myth of medication

There is more. In 1987, psychologist Courtenay Harding reported that a third of chronic schizophrenia patients released from Vermont State Hospital in the late 1950s completely recovered. Everyone in this "best-outcomes" group shared one common factor: All had weaned themselves from anti-psychotic medications. The notion that schizophrenics must spend a lifetime on these drugs, she concluded, is a "myth."

In 1994, Harvard Medical School researchers found that outcomes for U.S. schizophrenia patients had worsened during the past 20 years and were now no better than they were 100 years earlier, when therapy involved plunking patients into bathtubs for hours. And in 1998, University of Pennsylvania investigators reported that standard anti-psychotic medications cause a specific area of the brain to become abnormally enlarged and that this drug-induced enlargement is associated with a worsening of symptoms.

Comprehensive care succeeds

All of this has led a few European physicians to explore non-drug alternatives. In Finland, doctors treat newly diagnosed schizophrenia patients with comprehensive care: counseling, social-support services and the selective use of anti-psychotic medications. Some patients do better on low doses of medication, and some without it. And they report great results: A majority of patients remain free of psychotic symptoms for extended periods and hold down jobs.

John Nash's recovery from schizophrenia is a moving story. But we are not well served when the movie fibs about the anti-psychotic drugs' role in his recovery. If anything, his story should inspire us to reconsider anti-psychotics' long-term efficacy with an honest, open mind. That would be a first step toward reforming our care and if there is one thing we can conclude from the WHO studies, it is that reform is vitally needed. Perhaps then we could even hope that schizophrenia outcomes in this country would improve to the point that they were equal to those in poor countries such as India and Nigeria."

Here is what a British veteran psychiatrist, Dr. Bob Johnson, stated in his email to Rebecca Merhav's father who asked him for help to save Rebecca's life :

"Hi Ben
You have my complete sympathy - for 50 years the evidence has been that all so called anti-psychotic drugs are in fact pro-psychotics - they prolong the psychosis. I cover what should be done in my recent book 'unsafe at any dose'.

I have been ejected from 6 consultant psychiatric posts - and effectively barred from ever working in the NHS again - however, my research into the software problems of mental disease convinces me, as evidence from long ago confirms, that all psychoses are 100% curable - whereas all drugs make things worse.

I wish you well in your campaign, and when I get a media pedestal I shall give you my full support.
Best Wishes
Bob Johnson"

There is also proof of the deadly dangers associated with consuming psychiatric drugs as follows (excerpts from the article) :
http://www.ahrp.org/risks/biblio0100.php

Evidence of Neuroleptic Drug-Induced Brain Damage in Patients


Although patients, families and the public were not informed - some would argue they were deceived - clinical psychiatrists and researchers have long known about severe adverse drug reactions (ADR) and disabling changes in the central nervous system in a high percentage of patients taking standard neuroleptic drugs. Foremost among these is "tardive dyskinesia" (TD), an often irreversible, disfiguring disorder of the central nervous system resulting in a variety of involuntary movements, particularly of the tongue, lips, and jaw. muscle movements which affects 40% to 60% of patients taking neuroleptics. Recent research findings corroborate earlier reports (since 1970) linking TD to a deterioration of cognitive functions (see below).

Other severe ADRs include: "extrapyramidal symptoms" (EPS), Parkinson-like, impaired motor coordination; sedation; extreme restlessness ("akathesia"); reduced cognitive function;as well as cardiovascular effects, orthostatic hypotension, abnormal liver changes, anticholinergic side effects, sexual dysfunction, and weight gain. Psychotic relapse has been linked to long-term neuroleptic treatment --referred to as, "supersensitivity psychosis." Additionally, there is a one percent risk of "neuroleptic malignant syndrome" (NMS), a potentially fatal side effect.

These, and a host of other adverse side effects, cause most schizophrenia patients to stop taking these drugs.

In an article written in 1986, Tardive Dyskinesia: Barriers to the Professional Recognition of Iatrogenic Disease, [Journal of Health and Social Behavior,1986, 27: 116-132], Brown and Funk stated: "tardive dyskinesia (TD), once regarded by psychiatrists as a rare syndrome, is currently recognized as the second most pervasive side effect following sedation of antipsychotic drugs." Although evidence linking TD to neuroleptic drugs had been shown since 1957, Brown and Funk point out that the recognition of TD as a side effect had been "a slow and uneven process, involving psychiatric resistance....Even when physicians believe that patients should be informed about the risks of TD, usually only incomplete information is given, not all patients at risk are informed...." And, they noted, "psychiatrists who are critical of the profession's lax treatment of the problem argue that if doctors were really concerned, they would reduce their use of neuroleptics and reduce dosages when drugs are employed..." and they would fully disclose the risks of TD to their patients.

But a review of the history of TD demonstrates clearly that despite the evidence physicians' disclosure and practice with respect to neuroleptic drugs has remained unchanged, and TD afflicts ever more patients, especially after long-term exposure-estimates range between 40% to 60%. The APA has opposed written informed consent from patients."

"...Extrapyramidal symptoms cause much misery, often go undiagnosed, and can interfere with treatment and rehabilitation. Akinesia is a behavioral state of diminished motoric and psychic spontaneity that is difficult to distinguish from the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The most useful clinical correlates of akinesia are a subjective sense of sedation and excessive sleeping. Akinesia interferes with social adjustment and may manifest as "postpsychotic depression." The subjective restlessness of akathisia is usually accompanied by telltale foot movements: rocking from foot to foot while standing or walking on the spot. Akathisia is strongly associated with depression and dysphoric responses to neuroleptics and has even been linked to suicidal and homicidal behavior in extreme cases.

Recent Findings Corroborate high incidence of drug-induced movement disorders:
Miller LG, Jankovic J (1990) Neurologic approach to drug-induced movement disorders: a study of 125 patients.South Med J 1990 May;83(5):525-32. Department of Family Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex.

Of 125 patients with neuroleptic (dopamine blocking) drug-induced movement disorders who had been referred to a specialized clinic to differentiate the predominant movement disorder, 63% had tardive dyskinesia, 30% had parkinsonism, 24% had dystonia, 7% had akathisia, and 2% had isolated tremor. Two or more movement disorders coexisted in 31 patients (25%).
Functional disability was more severe in patients with akathisia than in other patients. Women outnumbered men at a ratio of 4:1, except for tardive dystonia which affected both sexes equally.
The average at onset was 56 years (range, 13 to 87); 69 patients (55%) had onset of movement disorder in the sixth decade. While tardive dystonia was distributed relatively evenly in all age groups, almost a third of patients with parkinsonism had it in the eighth decade.

Haloperidol was implicated in 47 patients (37%), followed by amitriptyline/perphenazine in 30%, thioridazine in 27%, and chlorpromazine in 20%. Metoclopramide-induced movement disorders were found in 10 (8%). Most patients (101 or 81%) had history of psychiatric illnesses, but of these only 44 had psychosis.

Neuroleptic drugs had been prescribed for 33 patients (26%) who had gastrointestinal problems. It is important to recognize and differentiate various drug-induced movement disorders because such differentiation has pathophysiologic and therapeutic implications. Many patients could have been treated with less potent drugs."

"...ABSTRACT: Although acute and immediate extrapyramidal syndromes are common and, in the case of neuroleptic malignant syndrome, may have serious sequelae, the most important problem with psychotropic medication in schizophrenia remains the tardive movement disorders. These are increasingly recognised as being aetiologically as well as symptomatically heterogeneous. Although risk factors are being identified with greater clarity, there is little in the way of effective treatment. This suggests that clinicians must embark on long term neuroleptic treatment with vigilance. Clozapine alone has few extrapyramidal effects, and has been described in isolated instances as improving established movement disorders. However, haematological idiosyncrasies will preclude its use in all where compliance is uncertain. Its superior efficacy will hopefully give impetus to research into safer analogues."

"...Supersensitivity psychosis has emerged as a potential side effect of long-term neuroleptic therapy that may be similar to tardive dyskinesia. Schizophrenic patients with supersensitivity psychosis and considered to be drug-resistant were treated with anti-epileptic medication. Forty-three separate trials were conducted on a total of 35 patients. Over half improved on clinical global impression, some of them considerably. We propose that antiepileptic drugs ameliorate supersensitivity psychosis and so-called "drug-resistant" schizophrenic patients by correcting a pharmacological kindling effect in the limbic system which results from chronic neuroleptic therapy."
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Saturday, June 16, 2007

SHRINKS' CYNICISM, ARROGANCE AND CONTEMPT FOR THEIR VICTIM-PATIENTS
by Justice Lover

Along with its atrocities and coercion under the prtext of "treatment" psychiatry and its practitioners showed only cynicism, arrogance and contempt for their victim-patients. This article provides two prominent examples, out of numerous cases of such attitudes.

The first example concerns a German citizen seeking justice in the European Court of Human Rights. The second example concerns the recent Dresden conference of psychiatrists for the declared purpose of dealing with psychiatric coercion, to which some leaders of survivors of psychiatry had been invited,but only to be incorporated into the psychiatric system.

Alexander Skugor of Berlin, Germany, had his claim for E500,000 compensation rejected by the European Court of Human Rights on April 10, 2007. On June 13,2007 he applied for
PRESENTATION AT THE GRAND CHAMBER to appeal against the court's judgement. The following is an excerpt from his letter :

http://home.tiscali.de/alex.sk/prozesse/EGH34.html#5

"Berlin, June 13, 2007

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

...My lawyer has informed me that certain points of my application were declared inadmissible. But I have so far received no explanation and no justification for this by either side. In my letter from April 5, 2005 I have declared:

"If the human rights court is to follow the FR Germany's legal practise by using psychiatric expertise as basis, with no regard to any logical plausibility check, then I see no use in taking my case further on."

The central point of my application is, that since September 12, 1994 I'm being alleged to suffer from a bio-genetic endogenous mental disease named "paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia" and that under this pretence I was tortured, maltreated, and deprived of my liberty and further on of all my basic human rights. Thereby it was the deprivation of my parental rights which caused the most devastating personal loss and psychologic suffering for me.

So there is no use and logic in separating my application in admissible and inadmissible points, because the case is about the legitimacy of the justification used, and this is the same in all points, i. e. the pretence of the psychiatric "experts" that I'm suffering from some sort of endogenous mental disease. And so the central issue is, that until today I have no scientific evidence before me regarding these allegations and that no court has ever requested such evidence to be presented. Not even the question has been cleared up whether any such diseases even exist at all, i. e. by any means of biological detection.

Therefore I see a special importance in my case, because by the present practise anybody can arbitrarily be diagnosed of suffering from any kind of imaginary diseases, leaving doors wide open for vicious and very grave human rights violations. Since I cannot recognise any discernible evidence in your judgement, it just represents a continuation of all the previous judgements which lack any rational foundation and thereby have caused my application to the human rights court.

My personal opinion is, that the crimes committed by psychiatry, by no means are lagging behind the nazi holocaust and I have expressed this repeatedly towards the human rights court. And what is the use of a human rights court if such holocaust accusations are arbitrarily being declared inadmissible? Is the use of the court to cover and mask such crimes, whereas a normal citizen is deluded assuming that the court is seriously protecting human rights?

What is being done by psychiatry, is with no doubt some kind of psycho eugenics, where the criteria essentially are to be seen as irrational, i. e. they are subject to selfish profit interests of the psycho-pharmaceutical industries and the "medics" and pseudo-scientists that represent it.

One criteria might be the "lack" of strict and blind observance of citizens towards legalistic authoritarian legislative, but I'm refusing to comment further on this towards the human rights court, because it would appear schizophrenic to me. The nature of psychiatry can be described as split in itself, in one conservative-conformist obscuring fraction and another progressive-humanistic enlightening fraction. Obviously the first fraction, with it's abstruse thesis, has been corrupted by "success" in the context of a certain conceptual definition of rational behaviour dominated by the plutocratic establishment and has abandoned the scientific quest for establishment of truth. By that it has deprecated itself to a pseudo-scientific instrument serving the abuse of power.

But if people are being sanctioned for their perception of reality is approximating towards objectivity, then a fascist totalitarian condition is established as it is described by George Orwell in his famous book "1984".

Furthermore it is difficult for me to assess whether your judgement is the result of counter­productive, and for me, an unintelligible contribution of my former lawyer in the French language. Anyway I would kindly request, in case of presentation at the "Grand Chamber" which herewith I apply for, to refer exclusively to my own personal more than adequate statements, requests and exhibits. The constraint for representation by a lawyer is being abused in FR Germany to deny citizens the basic right of legal hearing. This is also an essential part of my application and I have brought in additional particulars in my letter from July 6, 2005.

It is a highly odd historic irony that this kind of legal constraint which was introduced by the Hitler nazi regime in order to discriminate "unwelcome" population groups has found its way into the rules of the human rights court. So I declare that I wish not to be represented by any lawyer at all, as your own judgement proves clearly that it is of no use for me, but in this case is now obviously more of a source of additional confusion and obscurity.

Yours faithfully, ( -)"

The second case involves the wining and dining of David Oaks and his cronies by the top shrinks (see photo at http://www.mindfreedom.org/campaign/media/mfradio/next . If you click on the picture - which shows Prof. Juan E. Mezzich, President of World Psychiatric Association; David Oaks, Director of MindFreedom; Judi Chamberlin, on board of MindFreedom; Prof. Dr. Thomas W. Kallert, Conference Chair; author & psychiatric survivor Peter Lehmann - you get a full screen picture of the smiling Mezzich and David Oaks ! ).

David Oaks is very good at serving the shrinks. Weeks before the conference began he prepared a statement, which he called "the Dresden declaration" on behalf of all survivors of psychiatry. However, rather than opposing the conference itself - an evil conference of torturers ! - and demanding the immediate banning of psychiatry, David Oaks stated that "Our organizations will have representatives from a number of countries participating in the WPA conference, with the intent of putting a human face on this practice."

By "practice" he meant the practice of psychiatric coercion and torture, as this is the meaning he gives it at the bottom of the statement.
(see the statement www.mindfreedom.org/kb/mental-health-global/wpa-dresden/declaration/ ).

The shrinks, who never intended to stop psychiatric coercion, invited David Oaks and his cronies to make speeches and wine and dine at the conference, as a public relations excercise,namely, "to show the world what nice liberal and democratic people they are"...
(Emphasis by Justice Lover).

Friday, June 15, 2007

THE ELECTRIC SHOCKS TORTURE (ECT) FORCED BY THE SHRINKS
by Justice Lover

The following poem is by Sue Clark-Wittenberg ,a survivor of psychiatry in Canada
(see her life story : http://symclark.blogspot.com). It reads :
http://www.geocities.com/sueclark2001ca/1.html

"by Sue Clark-Wittenberg, 2007

The day I got my first ECT

I recall the room was white
the nurses wore white
the doctor wore white
and I was white as a sheet with fright


I lay on my back on the bed
with wires put on both sides of my head
a rubber band put on my forehead
and a rubber mallet stuck in between my teeth

I was scared to death, terrified
I wanted to jump up and run
but I could not
I saw the ECT machine
right to my left
and knew that horrible machine
was going to be turned on
any minute
and it would hurt my brain
and it did

I woke up after the ECT
dizzy, confused and did
not know who I was
where I was
I was put in a wheelchair
I missed my breakfast
and had to wait for lunch

a peer on my ward
told me many years later
that when the staff grabbed me
to take me to the ECT room
I screamed, kicked and bit the
staff and hollered
"Somebody, anybody, please
help me"
But nobody did

ECT hurt my brain
No one told me the
truth about what ECT
would do to me
because nobody cared

So that is why I want ECT the atrocity that it is
to be banned, to end,
to stop now
so no one else has to
go through the torture
like I did which is called ECT ."


Forced electric shocks torture (ECT) was invented in 1938, by Ugo Cerletti, an Italian psychiatrist under the fascist Mussolini dictatorship. Like the Hitler regime's psychiatrists in Germany, the Mussolini regime's psychiatrists were looking for more "effective ways" to get rid of dissent under fascist rule. Hence, the electric shocks atrocities, which have been making a "come back" after many years of hesitations by psychiatry's practitioners in the West.

Here is what a non-committed website informs the public regarding ECT

http://healthyplace.com/communities/Depression/ect/studies/cmhs.html :

"Douglas G. Cameron (26) of the World Association of Electroshock Survivors, addressing the Public Health Committee of the Texas House of Representatives in an April 1995 public hearing to consider a ban on ECT, captured the strong feelings of many ECT opponents with the following statement:

(ECT is) "An instrument which has injured and destroyed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people since its inception and continues to do so today."

Despite support from Cameron and others, proposed legislation to outlaw ECT was not enacted by the Texas legislature.

Comments contained in a two part series in USA Today (27) typify how some of the popular press view ECT:

"After years of decline, shock therapy is making a dramatic and sometimes deadly comeback, practiced now mostly on depressed elderly women who are largely ignorant of shock's true dangers and misled about shock's real risks."

The most revealing recent statement on ECT is by a person who has been considered by shrinks as the greatest expert on the subject. He now admits that over the past 25 years he has been telling lies to the public, namely, that ECT is a harmless "treatment". The following is an article published in USA Today and republished by Juli Lawrence, a survivor of psychiatry,
on her website, http://www.ect.org/electroconvulsive-therapy-causes-permanent-amnesia-and-cognitive-deficits-prominent-researcher-admits/#more-699 , as follows :

Electroconvulsive Therapy Causes Permanent Amnesia And Cognitive Deficits, Prominent Researcher Admits

Medical News Today
Dec 22 2006

In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals ability to function.

"This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.

For the past 25 years, ECT patients were told by Sackeim, the nations top ECT researcher, that the controversial treatment doesnt cause permanent amnesia and, in fact, improves memory and increases intelligence. Psychologist Sackeim also taught a generation of ECT practitioners that permanent amnesia from ECT is so rare that it could not be studied. He asserted that most people who said the treatment erased years of memory were mentally ill and thus not credible.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 3 million people have received ECT over the past generation. "Those patients who reported permanent adverse effects on cognition have now had their experiences validated," said Linda Andre, head of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, a national organization of ECT recipients.

Since the mid-1980s, Sackeim worked as a consultant to the ECT device manufacturer Mecta Corp. He never revealed his financial interest in ECT to NIMH, as required by federal law, and, until 2002, did not reveal it to New York officials as required by state law.

Neuropsychopharmacology has endured negative publicity over its failure to disclose financial conflicts of journal authors, resulting in the editors resignation and a promise to disclose such conflicts in the future; yet there is no disclosure of Sackeims long-term relationship with Mecta, nor did Sackeim disclose his financial conflict when his NIMH grant was renewed to 2009 at approximately $500,000 per year.

The six-month study followed about 250 patients in New York City hospitals, an unusually large number; most ECT studies are based on 20 to 30 patients. Sackeims previously published studies were short term, making it impossible to assess long-term effects. "However, in other contexts over the years court depositions, communications with mental health officials, and grant protocols Sackeim has claimed to follow up patients for as long as five years. This raises serious questions as to how long he has actually known of the existence and prevalence of permanent amnesia and why it wasnt revealed until now," Andre said.

Besides finding that ECT routinely causes substantial and permanent amnesia, the study contradicts Sackeims oft-published statements that ECT increases intelligence and that patients who report permanent adverse effects are mentally ill.

"The study is a stunning self-repudiation of a 25-year career," Andre said.
(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

FORCED BUTCHERY
OF HUMAN BRAINS BY SHRINKS AND BY THEIR "PSYCHOSURGEONS"- COLLABORATORS
by Justice Lover

Amongst the worst horror-crimes of psychiatry, and of its state shrinks, are tortures by electric shocks (ECT), and brain "surgery" (Lobotomy) forced on people the shrinks label as "chronically ill" and/or "treatment resistant." Here in Victoria, Australia, there is a "Psychosurgery Review Board" which has the legal power to order such a butchery of a patient's brain, and to protect the board from public protests of any kind, the law considers such protest as "contempt of court" with the same penalties.

In the official "explanation", under the title, "Psychosurgery Explained", the legislator admits that psychosurgery "is a procedure no longer practised in many parts of the world" (see http://www.prb.vic.gov.au/index.htm ). Yet it legalises and protects the butchers of the human brain ; so much so that according to section 130 of the Mental Health Act even to"insult a member of the Board or the Psychosurgery Review Board" is deemed to be a contempt of court, and punished accordingly.

Some people, paticularly psychiatrists who are opposed to psychiatric coercion, seem to confine their criticism of psychiatry to its "biological" dogma alone, or to its adherence to the medcal model alone. However, the history of psychiatry - from the Middle Ages to this day - is a history of cruelty, deceptions, oppression, and crimes against humanity. It always was a tool of oppression at the service of the ruling class, no matter which official dogma it was based on.
One of the founders of modern psychiatry, Eugen Bleuler, who invented the psychiatric term "Schizophrenia" , committed the typically Nazi crime of coerced sterilizations of his psychiatric patients many years before the psychiatrists of the Hitler regime did it in Germany, as part of the official policy of "healing by killing".

In 1949, only 4 years after the end of the 2nd WW, the Nobel prize was awarded to Egas Moniz, the neurologist who carried out the first lobotomy, the butchery of the brain. Within months of performing his first lobotomy, similar butcheries were being done all over the world. As another contemporary said, "Seldom in the history of medicine has an experimental procedure been so promptly adapted to the treatment of patients everywhere." Moniz received several honours and was finally awarded the Nobel prize in 1949. However, his victims, the patients who survived the brain butchery, became vegetating zombies for the rest of their lives.

A psychiaytry oriented website,

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Psychosurgery.html ,

presents a brief history of psychosurgery, concluding as follows :

"In 1935, researchers in the United States reported that damaging the frontal lobes and a nearby region of the brain called the prefrontal cortex could pacify a previously aggressive chimpanzee. A Portuguese psychiatrist, Antonio Egas Moniz, learned of these results and recruited neurosurgeon Almeida Lima to operate on some humans suffering from severe psychoses. Moniz's aim was to disconnect nerve pathways running from the frontal lobes to a part of the brain called the thalamus, which is located closer to the center of the brain. By cutting these connections, Moniz hypothesized that he could disconnect a neural circuit that ran from the frontal cortex to the thalamus and then to other parts of the brain's surface. He hoped that interrupting this pathway would disrupt the repetitive thoughts that Moniz believed were responsible for psychotic symptoms.

But as Elliot Valenstein writes in his book Great and Desperate Cures, The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness, "Although Moniz' rationale for prefrontal leucotomy was so vague as to constitute no theory at all, his explanation was repeated so often that itlike the emperor's new clothes in Hans Christian Andersen's famous story acquired a veneer of truth and was accepted (or at least repeated) by many other people." Psychiatrists were so desperate for a treatment for severe cases of mental illness that they allowed themselves to support the use of a procedure that was unproven and increasingly subject to abuse.

Moniz and Lima called their procedure leucotomy. It involved trepanning the skull, one hole on each side of the head, inserting a wire knife and cutting the targeted nerve fibers. Results were mixed enough for Moniz to recommend that the procedure be reserved only for the most seriously mentally ill patients for whom no other course of care or treatment worked. Nevertheless, after 1936, use of the technique spread rapidly, with equally unimpressive results overall. With little evidence of effectiveness and facing opposition from many psychiatrists, particularly psychotherapists, the technique would probably have been abandoned were it not for a pair of American physicians who revived the questionable procedure.

American neurologist Walter Freeman and neurosurgeon James Watts began operating on patients in 1936 and soon began aggressively promoting its effectiveness. Eventually, they overcame doubts expressed by their colleagues who somewhat reluctantly accepted the procedure now referred to as prefrontal lobotomy. In 1946, Freeman simplified Moniz's leucotomy procedure, reducing it to a less complicated, less messy, and less time-consuming operation known as the "ice-pick lobotomy." This allowed Freeman to line up patients and, under local anesthesia, tap an ice pick through the thin bone on the roof of their eye sockets. With the ice pick in the brain, Freeman would sweep it back and forth to cut the frontal lobe's connections to the rest of the brain. This in-and-out procedure required no hospitalization but many physicians viewed it with alarm. Watts himself refused to cooperate with Freeman after this technique was developed.

Still, in the 1940s, U.S. physicians performed an estimated 18,000 lobotomies. It was equally popular in other countries where more than 50,000 operations were conducted during the same period. Sadly, Moniz's warning was forgotten. The procedure was not reserved for the most hopeless cases but instead applied to "difficult" patients and became a way to control behavior rather than to relieve symptoms of mental disorder. The abuse often bordered on the criminal. Yet, Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology for pioneering the procedure."
(Emphasis by Justice Lover).

Sunday, June 10, 2007

PSYCHIATRY IS VERY HARMFUL, VERY DANGEROUS QUACKERY.
IT MUST BE BANNED NOW !

by Justice Lover

The official definition of psychiatry as a "Medical Specialty" is not only false and misleading , it is an impossibility from a scientific point of view. Which part of the human body is it supposed to provide medical service for ? It certainly is not the brain because neurology is in charge of the study and treatment of human brain malfunctions. According to neurology the human brains of those labelled "mentally ill" by psychiatrists are no different from those who are not so labelled.

Moreover, according to a 1972 experiment performed by David L.Rosenhan, an American psychologist, the purported "diagnosis" done by psychiatrists on their patients to determine their "mental illness" is utterly invalid, and therefore completely wrong. Here is what the Wikipedia says about it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment ) :

"The Rosenhan experiment was a famous experiment into the validity of psychiatric diagnosis conducted by David Rosenhan in 1963. It was published in the journal Science under the title "On being sane in insane places".

Rosenhan's study consisted of two parts. The first involved the use of healthy associates or 'pseudopatients', who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in 5 different states in various locations in the United States. The second involved asking staff at a psychiatric hospital to detect non-existent 'fake' patients. In the first case hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, in the second the staff falsely detected large numbers of genuine patients as impostors. The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis.

The study concluded "It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of depersonalization and labelling in psychiatric institutions."

Furthermore, a German postman by the name Gert Postel, who had no previous psychiatrist or medical qualifications, managed during 1981 to succesfully be accepted to the psychiatric profession and soon after got rapid promotion to the psychiatric hierarchy in Germany. By acting successfully as an impostor this postman managed to prove that psychiatry is no more than quackery, with no scientific basis whatsoever, and anyone can do the job of a psychiatrist. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview of Gert Postel by German TV
( http://gert-postel.de/english.htm ) :

- " You are a trained postman and for one and a half years you worked as a senior physician in a Saxon psychiatric hospital. This wasnt your first coup but the last one we know of. How did you apply for the job?
- The position was advertised in the Saechsische Amtsblatt and in the Deutsche Aerzteblatt, among others. Thirty physicians and specialists applied for the position and eight of them were short-listed. These eight applicants had to present a paper to the Appointment Board of the Ministry for Social Affairs.
- And what exactly was your lecture about?
- "Pseudology of the Fantastic" or "Compulsive Deception as Enhancement of the Self in Thomas Manns exemplary figure of Felix Krull", from his novel of the same title, The Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man.
- I assume you knew the novel by heart (?)
- Yes, I thought that the subject was very interesting indeed. What is more, I was certain that sooner or later everything would come to light and therefore I thought: "What a nice subject-matter"
- And your paper convinced the Board, or how did you prepare yourself for job-specific questions? Werent you worried about it?
- Yes, but my knowledge of psychiatry was in no way inferior to that of the so-called experts. At the hospital I was responsible for further training and qualification and very often I stood there and thought to myself: "Who actually is the fraud, me or them?". For example, I introduced new terminology, terms which do not exist. Right in front of a hundred psychiatrists I talked about the "Bipolar Depression of the Third Degree". This is a psychiatric term which does not exist and no one asked a single question about it.
- Why not?
- Because to ask would be embarrassing. You would admit to incompetence and in these circles you should rather not.
- Which other responsibilities did you have in Zschadrass?
- Id like to say something else regarding the job interview. I was asked about my doctorate and about the subject of my thesis. I answered "Cognitive-induced Distortions in the Stereotypical Formation of Judgement", which is nothing else than the stringing together of meaningless words. The immediate response however was. "Thats wonderful. In this case were sure youll feel at home here in Leipzig."
- And no one requested your thesis or wanted to read it?
- No, you only check on someone when there is the hint of a doubt. If theres nothing dubious about it then there is, of course, no need to delve any further.
- And no one had any doubts?
- During the whole period of working as a senior physician I wasnt criticised by anyone, not once. I was assessed and the senior consultant of the clinic wrote, "Senior physician Dr. Postel exceeds all expectations." This he later denied, so we reproduced the evaluation in the book.
- How did you exceed, what were your achievements?
- I dont think that you have to be particularly intelligent in order to become a senior physician in such a psychiatric institution.
- Well, thats your opinion
- You just have to know how to present yourself, and this is a "science"in itself, based on appearance and pretences. To me it seems to be a study of linguistics. If you have mastered the language, the psychiatric jargon, then youre able to formulate anything, you can even invent new terms.
- Perhaps you can talk like that to a colleague and impress them with hollow phrases but what happens when you have to put it into clinical practice, in front of a patient who needs your help?
- Look, I held the position of a senior physician and representative at this clinic. On this level you dont necessarily have close contact with the patient. Your responsibilities entail more global matters and general management. Almost all my assistants had specialised in Psychiatry; one was a qualified university lecturer in the field. Things ran smoothly and I very often felt just like Team Captain.
- OK so you had to organise, but you never practiced? I would find that reassuring
- Yes and no I did have some kind of concept. I was against repressive psychiatry as it was exercised in Zschadrass where injections were high on the agenda, Haloperidol was given as medication and patients were restrained to their beds. And I was against all the chemistry involved. If youre holding a position like mine you are in charge. With this power I could put measures into effect which I thought right.
- Yes, you felt they were right but how sure were you from a professional point of view, that everything was in the interest of the patient?
- I was positive and anyway, I observed everything closely and I always got the feedback.
- You also wrote assessments
- Yes, and special assessments
- Yes, but these were psychiatric assessments and reports which means you could make decisions which as a result had certain consequences for people.
- Yes, on a daily basis.
- And you never suffered from a bad conscience, after all, someone could have ended up in prison(?)
- The assessments were primarily concerned with the question of guilt and responsibility. I was always against the overuse of implementing Section 21 which excluded diminished responsibility. If someone commits a criminal act then they should take responsibility. Moreover, they also have a right to an answer and it shouldnt be denied to them because of a half-hearted assessment report, although psychiatrists have a slightly different view on the matter.
- You were also given the prospect of becoming a senior consultant. How did that come about?
- Yes, in addition I was head of a security prison, a special institution that accommodates people who kill their girlfriends while under the influence of alcohol. There was a threat of a large-scale breakout which I prevented, very much to the delight of the minister. Subsequently, he invited me to Dresden.
- And how did you prevent the breakout?
- I made several phone calls which resulted in the police removing these people and transferring them to other institutions.
- However, you didnt accept the new post as senior consultant, why not?
- The reasons are quite trivial, really. I went to the minister and actually I didnt want it at all. I was satisfied with the situation as it was
- So, you were afraid of insurmountable tasks (?)
- Not at all. The higher you climb in this hierarchy the easier it gets. As a senior consultant you can undoubtedly lead a much more comfortable life than a senior physician and as the latter your work is much easier than that of an assistant physician.
- Well, these are your experiences. How was the truth finally discovered?
- There was an assistant who was very dissatisfied with the senior physician she had to work under. So I took her into my section. The next time she went home she told her parents how happy she was now that she was working with the pleasant Dr. Postel. Well, her parents remembered the name and the bombshell dropped.
- You have to explain to us why they "remembered the name".
- When I was young, at the tender age of 23, I was Head of the Health Authority in Flensburg under the name of Dr. Dr. Clemens Bartholdy, but that wasnt very professional.
- And how did that come to light?
- I lost an ID-card, one with my real name on it and a professional pass authorised by the town of Flensburg. Both showed identical photographs, yet had different details.
- And you were found out(?)
- Yes.
- Too bad, not something one should loose
- No, one shouldnt. But sooner or later the truth had to be discovered anyway but until then I was the gifted senior physician of Zschadrass, and you know, there are good doctors and even very good psychiatrists. Still, thats the real thrill, for a postman to come along, doing the job for 18 months and with his superiors certifying him "exceptional abilities."
- In this case, you acted relatively openly, you didnt use a pseudonym. Why so daring this time? All the other times you had assumed a different name.
- Yes, but its better to use your own name than making one up.
- Just in case you loose your ID again.
- I dont know. I havent really given it too much thought.
- Or perhaps you identified yourself with the role. Did you really live the part and believe you were a doctor?
- Oh no, never, then Id be a bit of a nutcase.
- But according to the preface of your book, written by Prof. Dr. von Berg, you are mentally ill. The name sounds familiar. Thats another pseudonym, isnt it?
- Yes, though a lot of people were wondering and said that the book was indeed quite interesting but how did I get the famous Prof. von Berg to write the introduction.
- Which in this case means that they havent read the book properly, otherwise theyd know about Herr von Berg, he did help you, didnt he?
- I called the senior consultant at the hospital as Professor von Berg and as Director of the University Clinic of Neurology in Muenster and recommended my assistant, Dr. Postel, for the position.
- Although in both cases it was you
- Yes indeed, and two hours later Herr Dr. Kroemker returned my call and referred to the telephone conversation he had with Professor von Berg and how he had been full of praise, which I dismissed as exaggeration.
- The book tells the story slightly differently. There it says you were huffing and puffing from a bicycle tour
- Which is absolutely true apart from a few literary embellishments. You have to create a bit of atmosphere, you know.
- How did you manage to get away from Zschadrass just in time?
- Because the senior consultant told me that I was suspected of a serious offence. I was suspended until the next day. With incredible logic I concluded that finally the cat was out of the bag and that I should terminate my stay immediately. In fact, the senior consultant acted as accomplice.
- Afterwards you travelled freely through Germany for 11 months without being stopped.
- Well, this was a bit unpleasant. It was the worst time, and yes, I was never confronted.
- Although there was a situation where it got quite close, right?
- Indeed, there was a situation in Berlin where they have this perverse propaganda show called Fahndungsakte (The german version of Crimewatch). It was so malicious I became scared of myself when I saw it. I called a friend who is a lawyer and she pointed it out to me and I thought, it might be perfectly possible that the police were on their way. So I wrote a little note, pinned it to the door saying, "Dear Simone, Im with Steffi in Bremen. Will be back in a week. See you, yours"
- And it worked?
- Absolutely. The police came, they rang the bell, and I came up to look through the spyhole. There they were examining this piece of paper whereas in fact we were only like 10 cm apart from each other. In the end, the piece of paper was the irrefutable evidence: "He cant be in this flat." And this was the West German CID (Crime Investigation Department).
- Why do you put such a great emphasis on this?
- Because the CID in Berlin like to think of themselves as being brilliant and what great guys they are. In this case, they managed to look quite stupid.
- Why didnt you go abroad?
- You see, actually I didnt really want to run away. I just had such a mortal fear of prison. I just couldnt do it. The weather was too nice to go to the police.
- And what was the weather like when you were arrested?
- It was slightly colder, in March I think, in Stuttgart. But that was fine and I am very much reconciled with my time in prison. It was an experience of a particular kind and I had the opportunity to do something for myself. I was treated exceptionally well by the prison management and all the officials. I was very happy.
- In January 1999 you appeared before a court. We have the original pictures. Here is some footage. It is pure Gert Postel. Did you have any feelings of guilt?
- Yes, a bit. Occasionally I feel a bit remorseful, but not always and certainly not now. When I saw how the "real doctors" worked at the clinic the feeling of guilt faded. I came to see things in relative terms.
- Nevertheless, you abused the trust of your colleagues.
- Now you are starting to take the moral high ground. You see, I gave certain people an opportunity to make a fool of themselves. I held up a mirror to them and in the mirror they were ugly. And stupid as they were, they hit out at the mirror.
- Did any of the patients institute legal proceedings against you?
- Not that I know of. It was quite interesting. The prosecution in Leipzig was investigating, because if a postman had been a senior physician for such a long time he surely must have made mistakes. But they didnt find anything at all.
- No mistakes You didnt have any qualifications to enter a university, still you studied Theology and you even pulled off a coup. You had an audience with the Pope. We have a picture here.
- Thats right, I wanted to visit Rome and thought if I go I should meet the Pope. I got my references and letters of recommendation from the Bishop of Muenster, the Cardinal in Berlin and the German Embassy at the Holy See - not very easy.
- You are a trained postman, but worked as a doctor, you became deputy head of the Health Authority in Flensburg, or was it director, you had a position as senior physician in Saxony
- what will I do next?
- No, what led you to not being yourself and wanting to reach so much higher?
- Psychiatrically speaking you could say
- No, put it simply
- it is a multi-factual framework of effects where a lot of things come together. Its a subject that could take up a whole evening. It cant be explained in a few sentences. Of course, on the one hand I wanted to prove something to myself, on the other, I wanted to demonstrate that any trained goat, or even a postman, could become a psychiatrist. And thats not polemics.
- Though I suppose the experts feel very differently about it.
- Absolutely, and thats what they have to do in order to protect themselves. If they had to admit to it
- But just imagine wed constantly let loose postmen on the mentally ill. They are not really prepared for you, are they?
- I find the harping on about the postman aspect a bit Yes, once upon a time I was trained as a postman but there was also a personal development. I do not approve of postmen who want to become senior physicians.
- But youve tried what did you aim at, you wanted to prove something
- But there are a lot of things I am not really aware of. I am not constantly accounting for my actions. You see, there was probably a key event in my life. My mother was wrongly treated. She suffered from depression. Although she was treated by a psychiatrist and was given a stimulating drug but nothing to relieve her depression, which resulted in her suicide. For me this was a very traumatic experience. Furthermore, I had a girlfriend who underwent special training to become a neurologist. So I met these people who have the audacity, in a psychiatric context, to change people, and partly by force, whereas they couldnt even cope with their own little lives. And it came to the point when I thought, OK, whatever they were capable of, I could do it better.
- And which methods did you use?
- Methods?
- Why did you succeed in the end? Do fine feathers make fine birds? Or do the right words at the right time pave the way for careers?
- As far as Psychiatry is concerned it can be said that if youre able to perform linguistic acrobatics you can make a career for yourself. That is what Psychiatry is based on. It is a shallow science. I am not being polemic. There is the evidence.."


As far as mental patients are concerned, every state psychiatrist is an impostor. Yet ,state psychiatrists have the legal power to force deadly drugs torture, electric shock torture, isolation and restrain (as punishment during incarceration ), force a life long stigma etc. on innocent human beings who happen to be their patients ! The patients can be killed by the shrinks who would manage to get away even with murder ! All in the name of "medical treatment" at the hands of the practitioners of the "Medical Specialty" called psychiatry !
(Emphasis by Justice Lover )

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Unmasked: The WPA congress - a deplorable disaster

From 6 - 8 June 2007 in Dresden Germany a World Congress of Psychiatry is to take place on the subject of coercive treatment. The congress is evil, since it has as its premise torture-like coercion and force as the basis of psychiatry. This was confirmed by the organizer and speaker of the congress, Professor Thomas Kallert, on 24.5. in two large daily newspapers, the "Leipziger Volkszeitung" and the "Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten":

"Naturally, coercive measures in psychiatry are justified."


Thus Professor Kallert himself unmasked the fact that the invitation of "critics" of coercive treatment was only a cunning evasive maneuver. The actual goal of the congress however was never to place this practice of coercion and violence in psychiatry in question but instead to come to an agreement on an international level on how the coercive methods can be perfected and standardized. This is exactly the goal which we strongly criticize and we therefore demand the strict termination of all psychiatric coercion be it "coercive treatment", "compulsory custodian-ship" or "only" involuntary labeling with so-called psychiatric "diagnoses".

We are of the opinion that psychiatric coercive treatment is a despicable form of torture or comes close to being torture. According to the Anti-Torture Convention of the United Nations, coercive psychiatric treatment fulfills all criteria for the definition of torture:

1. Humans are subjected to great physical and mental harm by being locked up or the compulsory mechanism of a guardianship (so-called "support"), by the forced administering of harmful drugs (psychopharmacological drugs), electroshocking (so-called ECT), binding (so-called "four-point-restraint"), by slandering as allegedly "mentally ill", by the loss of dignity and one's self-determination and lasting social and physical consequences of coercive treatment.

2. It is not only a matter of persons just being tormented by others, it happens on the basis of national laws such as the "PsychKG" (German mental health laws) and custodianship law and is also exercised by "persons with official status" e.g. the social psychiatric service.

3. Psychiatric coercive treatment fulfills the criteria of the UN definition by torture in as much as humans are intimidated and/or forced into a confession, with the goal of "illness insight" so that the victim remains permanently under the control and thereby becoming a "customer" of psychiatry in order to standardize people's behavior and thoughts. Psychiatry is thereby an instrument of power and social control. (Here you can read a detailed account of the direct proximity of coercive psychiatry and torture: "Coercive psychiatry, a torture system": www.iaapa.de/zwang2/halmi_english.htm).

Psychiatric coercive treatment cannot be justified as medical or therapeutic treatment, because informed consent is necessary for it. The self-determination over one's own body is an inviolable human right. The only purpose of so-called psychiatric "diagnoses" is to divide adults into two categories: "humans" and the "mentally ill" and to rob the latter of their human rights, in order - under the pretext of the medical treatment - to make them submissive.

History has proven how the medical libel of the psychiatric diagnosis "Schizophrenia" can lead to criminal acts: the psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, inventor of this term, committed the typically Nazi crime of coerced sterilizations, based on this diagnosis.

Nobody demonstrated the complete void of contents of psychiatric jargon better than Gert Postel. The postman Gert Postel successfully impersonated a psychiatrist and was promoted to the position of head physician of a Saxonian psychiatric institute. As a result of this undercover "adventure" he knows the power apparatus of coercive psychiatry from the inside. So he can report from the inside of a power which is based only on the mystification of a non-existent knowledge and the gullibilty of its subjects. We therefore call for the nomination of Gert Postel for the Nobel Prize for Medicine. (You too can send your own demand to the Nobel Committee using the below specimen letter.)

Incidentally we have pleasantly observed that the number of participants of the congress falls well, well below the expectations of the organizers. We can thereby check off this congress as a further failed attempt to save this violent type of system. This is also because in 2005 on a legal level not only did the higher regional court of Celle establish that the legal basis for coercive treatment in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is missing, but by a special form of the representation agreement in the FRG we have a legal loop-hole, allowing the exclusion of compulsory hospitalization and coercive treatment for those who have signed such a representation agreement. Thus for those protected in such a way, these criminal actions become what they really are: the criminal offence of bodily injury and deprivation of liberty.

We invite you to join our protest:

- on Wednesday, 6 June, starting at 8:30h in front of the Congress Center on the sidewalk of Devrienstrasse. Starting at 16h we will proceed in a demonstration to the square in front of the "Kulturpalast" (intermediate demonstration) and later to the Town Hall (Rathaus) square with a closing speech at ca. 17:30h.

On Thursday, 7 June, we again start at 8:30h in front of the Congress Center on the sidewalk of Devrienstrasse. Additionally there will be a further protest demonstration from 17h at the Jorge-Gomondei-Platz (Neustadt).

- on Wednesday, beginning 19h in the Dresden City Hall ("Dresdner Rathaus, Ratsaal") you can visit the presentation "The Power of Psychiatry": Gert Postel in a discussion with the public will deliver a critical comment there on the World Congress of Psychiatry and at the beginning will read from his (German) book "Doktorspiele" ("Playing Doctor"). This event takes place in co-operation with WIR e.V. Dresden. (Entrance: 2 Euro, free entrance for those with disability pension, ALG2 or basic social support)

- to support the nomination of Gert Postel for the Nobel Prize for Medicine and to send the enlosed specimen letter with your own address as sender to the Nobel Committee
- to inform yourself about our psychiatry-critical film series in the filmtheater "Metropolis", address: Am Brauhaus 8 (entrance free - donations requested)
Program: - Tuesday, 5 June: 20h: "the Foucault Tribunal" + 22h: "Interview with Gert Postel"
and "Michel Foucault, Philosopher" - Thursday, 7 June: 20h: "For your own good" + 22h: "Frances" - Friday, 8 June: 20h: "Selection and Extermination" and
"Unheimliches Wiedersehen" + 22h "Healing by Killing"

International Association Against Psychiatric Assault (IAAPA) http://www.iaapa.ch Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Psychiatrie-Erfahrener e.V. (die-BPE) http://www.die-bpe.de Irren-Offensive e.V. http://www.antipsychiatrie.de and Landesverband Psychiatrie-Erfahrener Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. http://www.psychiatrie-erfahren.dein the Werner-Fuss-Zentrum, Greifswalder Str. 4, 10405 Berlin http://www.zwangspsychiatrie.de

(Emphasis added by Justice Lover).